Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-09-01

A PROVISION OF THE ACT VOID.
The provision of the Act authorizing the
Courts TO aid in the Investigation in the manner
indicated must. therefore, be adjudged void
The Federal Courts, under the Constitution
| cannot be made the aids TO any investigation by
commission or q committee into the affairs of
any one. II rights are TO be protected or wrongs
redressed by any investigations. it must be con
Quoted by regular proceedings in the Courts of
justice IN cases authorized by the Constitution.
The inability of the Courts OF the United states
TO exercise power in any other than regular Judi
cial proceedings vas decided in Hayburn's case
! as early as l7S2. e Dali, 4o93
In March OF that year Congress. passed an Act
providing that invalid officers soldiers and sea
men OF the revolution should be entitled to GER
| tam pensions proportionate to the extent of
| their disability, and devolved upon the Circuit
Cont OF the United States of the district where
| the invalid resided the duty of examining the
| proofs presented of the nature and ex ent Of
the disability. and of determining what amount
| OF their monthly pay would be equivalent to
| the disability ascertained, and 10 certify the
I same TO the Secretary OF War, who was 10 place
the name OF the applicant on the pension list of
the United States in conformity thereto, unless
| ne had cause TO suspect fmpositions or mis-
takes, In which case he was authorized to with
hold the name of the applicant from the list
and report the same to Congress at its next ses-
SION. q stats al large, pa, Secs. and A.
Every Circuit Judge, except one who did not
! have the question before him, was of opinion
that the law was unconstitutional and void.
| From q statement of Mr. Justice Curtis,
| in note appended TO the report of the case.
| 1t would seem that the Judges were of
| the opinion that the power devolved upon
them by the Act was not judicial in the sense
/ of the Constitution, and If judicial that their
decisions could not be subject to the revision OF
| the Secretary of War, or of the Congress of the
| United States. Plainly, the power exercised by
| them IN determining the extent to which the
Invalids were entitled 70 the pensions provided
| upon the proof produced was in It's nature Judi
! cial. for it required examination of evidence
and Judgment thereon, but it was not judicisl in
| the sense of the Constitution under which Judi
| cial power can be exercised only in cases
enumerated ID that instrument. The Judges
torw aided their conclusions 10 President Wash
| ington. and the Act was subsequently, repealed.
A SUIT being afterwards brought against one
Yale Todd, 10 recover back the amount of pen
sion paid to him, the question Of the validity OF
| the Act came before the Supreme Court, and
| Judgment was rendered in favor of the United
| states for the money. This case will be found
! stated at length by Chief Justice fancy in d
! note to the report of United States V. Ferreria,
| ID Howard So. 60 The decision" said that grea;
Chief Justice. has ever since been regarded
and followed by every Department Of the Gov
ernment by the legislative and executive, as
wei az the judiciary" (6ordony United States
| The conclusion we have thus reached disposes
of the petition Of the Railway Commissioners
and renders IL unnecessary to consider whether
| tAe lnterrogatorleS propOunded were proper in
| themselves, or were sufficiently met by the an
| swers given by Mr.. stanford, or whether any of
| them were open to objection for the assumption
! they made or the imputatiops they implied. II
is enough that the Federal Courts cannot be
| made the Instruments to aid the Commissioners
IN their Investigations. 1t also renders il unne-
| cessary to make any comment upon the extraor-
| binary position taken by them according to the
| ST ttement OF the respondent, to which we have
| referred, that they did not regard themselves
! bound in their examination by the ordinary
| rules of evidence. but would receive hears ~
| and ex parte statements. surnises and informa-
| ton OF every character that might be called TO
their attention. 1t cannot be that Courts of the
| United States can be used i'll furtherance of in
yestigations in which all rules of evidence may
| be thus disregarded
| The motion of the District Attorney for per
| enptory order upon the witness to answer the
| interrogatories propounded as set forth in the
! petition of the Railway Commission, is, there
| fore, denied
Judge Sawyer's Concurring Opinion.
! I fully concur in the reasoning of the Circuit
| Justice and the conclusions reached but 0eem
| II proper to present some further views in sup
| port OF our decision.
1t is necessary to understand the exact legal
relation of the Central Pacific Railroad ON many
to the United States in order to correctly appre-
| ciate the constitutional powers of Congress and
| OF the Commission acting under its authority
| over It, The Central Pacific Railroad Company
| Is a private corporation, created and existing
under the laws of the State of California 1t de-
rived none of its corporate faculties or franchises
| from the United States. 1t ;s in no way subject
| 10 the control or laws of the United States ex-
cept so far as it is subject to regulation, as an
| instrument OF foreign or interstate commerce
or its authority TO establish post roads or its
| war powers in pursuance of the constitutional
| provisions on the subject or such regulation as
| is authorized by the terms of the contract found
| IN the Acts OF Congress of 1852 and 1854 ac-
copied By the railroad company contract.
| The Central Pacific Railroad Company is sim
ply an Artificial person created with certain fac
ulties by the State of California and stands in re-
| LatiOn to the United States, within the scope of
It's faculties in precisely the same situation as
| natural person under like circumstance The
| United states has no more and no less power
u
| IN the same situation. The contract might as
| well have been made with a natural person rs
! with corporation. Had the grantee under the
| Acts OF Congress been a natural person instead
| of the Central Pacific Railroad Company ac-
| cepting the terms OF the contract rendered hy
| the Act and constructing the road and perform
ing the conditions of the contract, the rights of
| the United States would have been precisely
| such as they are now with respect 70 the Central
| Pacific Railroad Company-no more and no
less. Since all the conditions of the contract on
| pany have been fully performed in all respects
| so lar as they are required to be performed for
thar purpose. the title to the lands granted has
| fully vested. and the Government bonds having
| been delivered, the Central Pacific Railroad
| Company has become the absolute owner of the
road and all its appurtenances, together with
| the lands granted and bonds issued subject
| only to the mortgage TO secure the payment OF
! the bonds issued by itself. and the lien OF the
Government to secure its advances in all re-
spects IN the same manner and.t the same ex-
tent as If IL were natural person similarly stu
ated. The United States has no further control
over or interest in said lands or bonds.
THE BINDING CONTRACT
The United States, in Sections and of the
| Act of 1862, and Section of the Act of 1854
| rendered the railroad companies 4 contract, and
| when accepted there was a contract between
| the parties upon the terms specified, obligatory
upon both, ard which could not be changed nv
| either without the consent of the o her. Says
the supreme Court, in Z. S. VS.. C. P R. R. Co
| QlS U. 81. 9S, after quoting these provisions.
| contract between the United States and the ap-
| pellee. 70. .. VS.. U. p. *. K. Co, 81 u s., II;
| Sinking Fund case, SO U. s.; 70o-71s; U. P R. r.
Go. VS.. o. S; lo4 y. S, 662). This contract is
| without consent of the company, change its
| terms by any subsequent legislation" Being
| the owner, with the title fully vested in it. the
| company could dispose of the lands and bonds
at It's own will and pleasure, In the same man
| er, and 70 the same extent, and with the same
! effect, as if the contract had been between two
| natural persons, without being liable to render
| any other account to the United States than it
| could be called upon TO render had the United
| states been an association of an equal number
| OF natural persons.
| 1t ia consequently amatter ONO legal concern
| to the United States what disposition the com
! pany made ofthe lands or bonds and they have
| no right to inquire into the matter of their dis
| position, in any other mode, or under any other
| circumstances, than they could have, had the
| corporation been natural person.
The relation of the Central Pacific Railroad
| Company to the United States Therefore under
| the contract as contract, is now simply
! that OF debtor and creditor with certain cove
nants for service on its completed road still to
| be performed By the letter With the debt and
| performance of those covenants, secu red by GER
| tain specific liens upon portions of property Of
| the debtor. They stand upon equal footing
! as contractors, and upon the same footing as
! debtor and creditor as if the indebtedness obi
| cations and securities existed between two
| natural persons, This is clearly the result as
| established by the Supreme Court in the sink
| ing fund cases, which has by a divided Court
| extended the power of Congress further in that
| direction than any other, as It seems to u.s. and
| to the utmost admissible limit
In those cases the Chief Justice, who an
| nounced the opinion of the majority of the
| Court. in speaking of the Union Pacific Compa-
] ny, which is a corporation created by Congress
I itself, said: The United States occupy toward
! this corporation twofold relation-that of SOW.
| ereign and that of creditor. (U. 5. VS.. Union
| Pacific Railroad Company, IS q. g., 559) Their
rights as sovereign are not crippled be-